|
|
| Author |
Message |
jaklumen
|
|
Studio wizardry vs. concert magic.
| 
Jan 13 05:57 UTC 2003 |
Which do you prefer, music that has been well produced in a studio, or
to go see your favorite artist(s) live in concert?
I'll admit I enjoyed seeing Depeche Mode in concert-- lights and video
and other FX was sweet. But minus that, some of the sonic experience
just wasn't the same.
Perhaps I'm being narrow here-- classical music on recording vs. in a
concert hall would be a much more interesting discussion, as folk,
country, and rock groups do not always have the benefit of a venue with
great acoustics.
Some acts really do not have a concert component (or none that I know
of)-- Enigma was conceived as a studio concept, with the idea that the
artist would be unknown and a mystery. I'm not sure if Enya has ever
given a concert-- according to press, she is extremely introverted and
shy.
Perhaps the encouragement of bootlegs by the band Grateful Dead (of
course when Jerry Garcia was alive) was really an expression that the
live experience or anything close to it was best.
Anyway..
|
| 5 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 1 of 5:
|
Jan 13 06:40 UTC 2003 |
> Which do you prefer, music that has been well produced in a studio, or
> to go see your favorite artist(s) live in concert?
I don't know that I agree that it has to be one or the other..
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 5:
|
Jan 13 14:07 UTC 2003 |
I like to see a band which has interesting studio productions and then a
really good live act. Where most bands blow it is either in not "capturing
their live sound" in the studio, or else attempting to exactly recreate their
studio hits live.
I'm usually impressed when a band can play live and come up with a good live
version/adaption of their studio stuff - changing whatever doesn't translate
well to the stage.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 3 of 5:
|
Jan 14 05:00 UTC 2003 |
Since I only go to folk concerts, I doubt that I'm a good answerer for this
question. :-) To me, the magic of a live show is pretty damn special, but I
don't usually find much difference, acoustically, between most folk albums
and the live shows for my favourite artists (most of them use the same
instruments and not much extra on album so it's pretty close live, just
because it can't help but be).
|
dbratman
|
|
response 4 of 5:
|
Jan 18 00:23 UTC 2003 |
My answer to the question depends entirely on the artists.
Some are dead in the studio, without an audience to feed off of, and
generate enormous excitement live.
Others are sloppy in live performance, and burnish their work to a fine
sheen in the studio.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 5 of 5:
|
Feb 2 11:23 UTC 2003 |
resp:3 well, I was thinking of the folk concerts I've been to, and I
think it's a bit more charming to see the artists in person. But then
again, these are small venues and you can be up close and personal.
And yeah, I've noticed that too as my folks have bought a few CDs from
the folk acts they've seen. Sometimes there's some studio tricks like
multitracking (so artists can sing harmony with themselves), but yeah,
usually, it's not much.
resp:2 These days with good engineering, more acts can reproduce more
of what they do in the studio. But I agree-- it's limited, and so a
live performance has to be a differently constructed thing entirely.
--
As far as sound, I'm not a huge fan of live performance.. I'm just too
enamored of slick studio wizardry. What I like, however, is the
video, lights, and seeing the performers in person. But-- I suppose
I'm not one to say much, as I've only been to a few commercial
concerts.
I'm not a very exuberant person, so sometimes it's nice to listen to
carefully crafted studio stuff that I can get lost in, especially with
a pair of headphones. Maybe that's why ambient has an appeal..
|